Who would have thought that, page-22

Ahh. The backseat driver who can do it better and would but for..well...

I was going to go through your essay point by point but I just can't be bothered. There is not a single idea that Eden isn't covering and your insistence that a DOT or concrete supplier would be more impressed with a peer reviewed technical paper over an abrasion test or successful field trial is the kind of silliness you're hoping people will glaze over with boredom and miss.

You do realise Eden is working with both Uni of Queensland and Deakin don't you? You understand there are no research papers on Eden's CNT dispersion method because that would be dumb? Do you really think that the sales team is out there with a printout of the Edencrete website and run away after presenting it so as not to answer any questions? I mean, what are you trying to say?

The first trials for Edencrete started 3 yrs ago. That is such a short time when breaking into an established, conservative industry. Yes I think the SP sux at the moment but I can see the huge strides being made and am happy to be patient with the boys at the lab;

Eden further expanded its highly skilled and experienced product development team that now
includes a highly qualified and experienced chemist, a chemical engineer and various concrete experts.

that people seem to forget about and let the sales team bring the exhaustive testing needed to reassure the people building roads and bridges to it's conclusion and reap the resulting, ongoing sales.